Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 61 KB, 480x314, privacy_control.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
47974158 No.47974158 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

I have an issue, /g/.

Backstory: My father is a cop in the Houston area, so he's got some pretty strong views on just about everything. Now, I was raised by my parents, who are pretty conservative, Republican, Christian, etc. Even though I turned out agnostic, mostly liberal (except the whole /pol/ anti-semitism thing is starting to take a hold on me), and pretty un-American, ya know, not too fond of 'Murica, nor the whole patriotism thing, looking to move to Switzerland, actually.

Anyways, my father and I were talking, and one thing led to another and the question "If a person does not agree with a law, are they obliged to follow it?" came up. I said no, saying if the person genuinely does not agree with the law, and not following it will not result in the harm of anyone or anything else, then they shouldn't be obligated to follow it. He said it's our obligation as citizens to follow the laws as they're set in place for the common good and to protect our freedoms.

Now, this is the /g/ part. Privacy came up. I started talking about how some laws don't really benefit the common too well, and how there are motives other than the common good behind a lot of laws set in place, example being extensive data mining by the NSA and over-invasive searches by the TSA. He, of course, instantly brought up 9/11 and said "Well, you wouldn't be able to debate privacy if you were dead."

He then used the "Why should I care if I have nothing to hide?" argument, and I honestly, didn't have anything to rebuttle.. I mean.. I love privacy, installing Gentoo and Cyanogenmod with no Google Play Services, etc. but, as stupid as that argument sounds to me, I couldn't think of a rebuttle.

Why should you care if you have nothing to hide? I argued that it's infringing our basic right to privacy - he said that privacy isn't a human right and doesn't matter. I don't get it. I just.. He really doesn't care about privacy..

And I do.

(1/2) (too long for one post) (pic very related)

>> No.47974168

>>47974158

But I can't seem to explain why, or at least argue why giving up too much privacy for security is bad. I just, I don't know.

He's stated multiple times that politically, I'm the kind of person he makes fun of.

tl;dr I honestly can't come up with a good argument for privacy over security, nor can I seem to argue against the "but i dindunuffin i got nuffin to hide" argument, as much as I defend privacy. Halp, /g/.

Also, he used those Muslim attacks on people drawing Muhammad as an example of why the Internet and having completely free speech is bad.

(2/2)

>> No.47974224

>>47974158
>>47974168
You're not obligated to follow a law if it is not right.

I also used to be rather hateful of this country for a variety of reasons, such as the infant circumcision that I was subjected to and whatnot, but I was in a Sweden thread on /pol/ a long while back and learned that those who abandon their country are worse than those who ruined them.

The United States is your country. Don't abandon it. Work to fix it.

Privacy is important in the same way that any freedom a country claims to have is important.

Privacy is important in the same way that the right to bear arms is important. Ask him what he thinks about gun ownership.

We have no rights, but we need to say that we do or chaos will reign. We need order.

>Also, he used those Muslim attacks on people drawing Muhammad as an example of why the Internet and having completely free speech is bad.
Well that's just silly.

>> No.47974259

>>47974224

>The United States is your country. Don't abandon it. Work to fix it.

OP here. I.. I've never thought of it that way. I'd usually joke, saying "It's already happened", and it's too late, but I don't know, man.. That really made me think.

>Privacy is important in the same way that the right to bear arms is important.

Wow. That makes sense, if he's willing to give up privacy for security, why not guns for security? That makes so much sense.

Thanks, Anon.

>> No.47974291

Privacy ensures that you have the ability to make your own decisions without anybody watching what you do.

With the modern extensive invasions of privacy, government groups are learning pretty much everything about you. It won't be long before they are able to practically read your mind (there's an Eric Schmidt quote about this), and therefore influence your thought process before you can form your own valid opinion.

But don't worry about convincing your father - he's just a dumbass.

>> No.47974295

>Why should I care if I have nothing to hide?

This argument only works if you and the government are on the same page. If there's something you think should be okay to do, but the government does not, welp you're in trouble. And if everyone's nailed/behind bars on some particular issue, it makes grouping together and going "hey, we the bunch of people think this is crap" that much harder.

It also opens the door to future problems. Let's say you and the government or whoever are doing survelliance are on the same page RIGHT NOW. Everything they're watching for is something you think is genuinely wrong. But in the future, you and the government aren't on the same page. Say some party you disagree with comes to power, or something. They change the rules to match their views. Now not only are you in violation of new rules you don't agree with, but even if you STOPPED doing whatever is now illegal, there's tons of past records of you doing it. Can you trust you won't get nailed for that?

"If I have nothing to hide" = "I have 100% confidence that future governments will ALSO match my views on what should be allowed & thus I'll never get shit I do now brought against me in the future." It takes one bunch of assholes in power _ever_ to get you in tons of trouble.

>> No.47974347

>>47974291

OP here. The thing is, my father is almost *unwilling* to read this deep into things. He sees it as black and white - either we have privacy, which is *BAD*, and we get killed by terrorists, or we don't, and the terrorists get caught.

The man sees no other implications that not having privacy leads to, such as >>47974295
is saying.

>>47974295

Thanks for that, I'm glad I'm finally getting a better understanding and ground for arguments now.

>> No.47974373

>>47974158
>and pretty un-American, ya know, not too fond of 'Murica, nor the whole patriotism thing, looking to move to Switzerland, actually.

You are a massive fucking retard.

>> No.47974388

UPDATE:

I sent him a text message, as we're not physically together anymore, saying, and I quote:

"If you're willing to give up your privacy for security, because, you know, that could result in someone harming someone else, why are you pro-gun? Owning guns, giving every civilian a lethal weapon could lead to someone harming someone else, too."

He replies:

"The right to bear is not a law but a right."

>> No.47974434

>>47974388
Tell him that privacy is a right in the same sense that bearing is a right. If privacy is not a right, how is bearing a right?

>> No.47974446

I think you should develop your views a little more before you try to debate them. Maybe read some books by people who share your view.

>> No.47974450

>>47974388
okay but like the question I really gotta ask

why do you care? You realize that you're not the only person on a different political page as your parents right? If anything I'd argue that's the majority of /g/

actually second question

how old are you? "SCREW THIS IM MOVING TO SWITZERLAND AND TAKING ADVICE FROM 4CHAN" just like me in high school

>> No.47974451

>>47974373

Hey, man. I don't know if I can argue with you on that one - only a fool would consider himself wise. A wise man will consider himself a fool.

Knowing that, I'd consider myself a fool. But that would imply I'm wise.

:^)

>> No.47974488

>>47974451

What a roundabout way of saying nothing valuable at all.

I stand by my position that you're an idiot, and do so without reflection on my own intellect.

>> No.47974538

>>47974434

I have, apparently it isn't to him. I don't know, he's outright said that humans have no right to privacy.

>>47974450

>why do you care?

I'm not sure, Anon. At first, I was genuinely curious as to what was going on in my father's head, saying those things that I thought were outright absurd, but then I realized I needed to figure out what was going on in my head - I was sitting there, thinking, *knowing* he was outright wrong, but I couldn't say why. My views and arguments aren't developed enough.

And I did care at first, but like I said, it's more of a developing my arguments and solidifying my stance kind of thing now, nothing to do with my father.

>how old are you?

This is an anonymous imageboard, Anon. I am over the age of 18, but for privacy concerns, I will not be giving out my age. ;)

Also, /g/ can be pretty reasonable, been here for nearly three years, so not too long, but there's like 65% dumbasses and 35% reasonable, somewhat intelligent people here.

>> No.47974565

>>47974158
>Why should I care if I have nothing to hide?

The question implies only criminals use privacy.

>free speech is bad.

Your dad is losing his shit.

Follow the law and don't be a fag.

>> No.47974574

>Man, America sure is fucking stupid, and I'm such a megaliberal!
>I know, I'll move to the only other nation in the world where firearms ownership is considered a pastime and where there's federally mandated military service.

- OP, the spastic teenager

>> No.47974575

>>47974488

I started this whole thread with the purpose of reflecting on my own intellect. I'm looking for arguments to back up my views that I defend and absolutely *know* are right, that I don't have any sources or arguments to back up. I'm asking the same board that got me interested in privacy in the first place.

No need to be so hostile, man. Nothing beneficial comes out of hostility here.

>> No.47974596

>>47974565

He claims only criminals would want to defend their privacy.

>>47974574

Lol, you got me there, man. Great post!

>> No.47974625

>>47974575
>I'm looking for arguments to back up my views that I defend and absolutely *know* are right, that I don't have any sources or arguments to back up.

If you hold dear a position and have NO reason to do so (such that you need to come and ask us), then your position is fucking garbage. No offense intended, but that's the nature of things. Consider a foundation for your arguments.

For me, the argument of privacy is established in terms of natural rights. If I am not doing anything to interfere with the natural rights of another, then no one can interfere with my natural rights. Because we have a natural right to property, the privacy of that property is also a natural right.

That is to say: no one can come into your house and read your mail because it is your property.

Despite online communications being intangible, they are similarly, your property.

>> No.47974634

>>47974596
Check out the book Data and Goliath by Schneier.

https://www.schneier.com/books/data_and_goliath/

>> No.47974637

>>47974596
>Lol, you got me there, man. Great post!

Are you even going to argue the point, or just ironically suggest you don't have a rebuttal?

>> No.47974658

Next time you see him ask him if you can watch him bang your mum next time. After all privacy doesn't matter.


But really it comes down to embarrassment/shame. This sort of stuff can ruin people.

>> No.47974667

>>47974625

>If you hold dear a position and have NO reason to do so (such that you need to come and ask us), then your position is fucking garbage. No offense intended, but that's the nature of things. Consider a foundation for your arguments.

Yes, yes, that's what I was trying to get across. My position *is* fucking garbage, and I'd like to lay a foundation for my arguments so I don't feel like such an idiot. I don't want my position to be garbage - I want to be able to defend privacy with reason.

And yes, I agree with the rest of your post very much.

>> No.47974670

>>47974158
Ask him if he would divorce his wife and your mother if those in power outlawed homosexual marriages, and if he would give up his firearms if those in power decided that the American people were unfit to posses such weapons.

>> No.47974691

>>47974658
Wrong fuckboy, it's about security.

>> No.47974717

>>47974634

Thanks, Anon. Going to start reading it tonight, hopefully.

>>47974658

But really it comes down to embarrassment/shame. This sort of stuff can ruin people.

I'm not sure this man feels embarrassment or shame.

>> No.47974726

If you live in the law's land, you're obliged to acknowledge the law. Might be unfair in certain circumstances, but that's just the way it is.

If you have the means/support to challenge that law then do so. Otherwise you're at the law's mercy until you expatriate.

>> No.47974731

>>47974670

>homosexual marriages

wat

>> No.47974755
File: 10 KB, 471x418, australia_map.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
47974755

>>47974670
>if he would give up his firearms if those in power decided that the American people were unfit to posses such weapons.

This is a good one to start with, because only an idiot would say yes to giving up their guns.

pic related: tard central

>> No.47974757

>>47974731
I ment hetero, I live in sandiego and gay is everywhere down here. but correction aside, would he obey the law against heterosexual marriages should one pass on a federal level?

>> No.47974807

>>47974755

I'll have to ask him, unfortunately I'm going to have to abandon thread, as he's unavailable and I'm tired.

>>47974757

I doubt it, but I guarantee his response would be "the government would never do that".

Night, /g/uys.

>> No.47974817

>>47974807

Wait, before you go:

Do you hate guns?

>> No.47974838

Consider how countries that are actual, literal dictatorships establish their surveillance states over time. Once you see how it begins and how it all seems so reasonable at first, you begin to understand why it's so important to stamp the attitude out before it can take hold of a democratic Western nation - this applies not just to the US, but to every country that's implementing any version of a 'Patriot Act' - the UK, Canada, etc.

It all starts with placing the blame on some ambiguous enemy group. Initially this applies to all terrorists, but as circumstances change, so do the definitions. When drone strikes kill any adult male in the vicinity of a suspected terrorist, that male is referred to as a 'militant', even when there is no evidence that he is associated with a terrorist group. The definition of what an 'enemy' is blurs. When Assad become public enemy number 2 behind the rise of ISIS, he became a pseudo-ally - we had to fight ISIS, but in doing so we strengthened Assad's regime, since ISIS was also fighting Assad. The definition continues to blur. In an effort to prevent these activities domestically, the FBI and some major police departments send in spies to mosques, hoping to find anti-American sentiments. Suspect individuals are placed on watchlists despite not actually committing a crime, and thus find themselves treated as if guilty. The lines between 'known enemies', 'potential enemies', and even 'hypothetical possible enemies' have now been blurred to such an extent that it seems ridiculous to think this can't extend to someone with a fringe, or even minority, political view. Those in power are constantly redefining what makes an 'enemy' to fit their current goals - we know this from experience.

The purpose of this surveillance, from the government's point of view, is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo.

>> No.47974859

>>47974158

True privacy allows individuality to take root. As humans our public face can be quite different than our private face. If you are always under surveillance you cannot expose or grow the private part of yourself. Think about the incredible pressure a homosexual in the closet must be under.

It's almost the same thing as the anonymity allowed by 4chan. Look at the near violent churn of ideas here. It could never happen if everybody had their real names by their posts.

Anyway, the 1974 movie "The Conversation" with Gene Hackman covers this. At the end he sinks emotionless to the floor knowing that he is probably under surveillance at that moment.

Then you have to look at the epic failure of 'law enforcement'. No matter what, if somebody is willing to die, they will probably be successful in whatever dastardly deed they want to do. The Boston bombing happened right under the nose of law enforcement in the surveillance state that exists since 9/11. No matter how many freedoms you sacrifice, this sort of thing will happen occasionally.

Then you have to look at the almost innate goodness of people. If you have a society where you can be successful, you have little drive to do nefarious deeds. There are more guns than people here, and yet a bank robbery is rare.

>> No.47974884

Also the NSA is basically a rogue agency gone unchecked by laws that affect everyone else.

It's part of a world power that dominates most of the planet. No one is going to be able to keep it in check if they haven't tried already. All you can do is try to stay under it's radar. The U.S. Govt is out of control. and there's no way to combat it, outside of the barrel of a gun.

>> No.47974917

>>47974158
>>47974168
Remind him that the data the government collects tends to linger for a very long time, and some day the government may decide to use that information for ends that are contrary to the benefit of the common good.

>> No.47974931
File: 147 KB, 600x800, lv05.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
47974931

>"Why should I care if I have nothing to hide?"

1. The "if you have nothing to hide..." line is predicated on the viewer having final say about whether something is right/wrong, thus subordinating the subject to the viewer. This is repulsive to the notion of liberty as protected by the American "4th Amendment" right of freedom from governmental inspection without an adjudicated warrant. To wit: it's not that I have something to hide, it's that someone else is going to be obnoxious if they see it.

On a related but semantically distinct note...

2. Those pushing "if you have nothing to hide..." have suspect & ulterior motives. Their existence (income, job, power, prestige) depend on finding something "wrong". They are, by job description, hostile to me. If they derived nothing from inspecting others, they would not care whether anything was hidden or not. Remember: they seek the power to punish, not just what they find wrong, but what they cannot inspect. Your exposure nets you little, but gains them so much they want to reprimand you for any concealment.

>> No.47974941
File: 236 KB, 424x448, Elsa_absolutely_disgusting.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
47974941

>>47974158
>he said that privacy isn't a human right and doesn't matter.
He's wrong. Declaration of human rights, article 12.

>> No.47974942

>>47974817

Of course not. That's equivalent to hating privacy in my opinion. The government taking either away results in a person having less control over their lives.

>>47974838

This. THIS. This is exactly what I had in the back of my mind, and you worded it in a way I couldn't have. Thank you, Anon.

>>47974859

I'll have to watch The Conversation.

>No matter how many freedoms your sacrifice, this sort of thing will happen occasionally.

That makes a lot of sense.

>> No.47974950
File: 60 KB, 800x600, tymg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
47974950

>>47974942
>Of course not.

At least you aren't a total shithead. You're alright by me.

>> No.47974952

Houston, we got a problem.

>> No.47974963

>>47974158

Ask your old man if he thinks the African Americans in the 60's non-violently breaking the separate but equal laws in order to effect social change was wrong. I'm talking about sitting at the whites only counter, and drinking from the whites only drinking fountain. Yes they broke the laws for all the right reasons.

I was raised to believe that it is OK to break the law as long as you were 100% willing to accept the consequences of your actions. This leaves you free to both respect the law, and to have a societally (sp) beneficial disrespect for it.

Your Dad is just trapped by his own beliefs. In spite of that, and maybe because of that, he can be a good cop. He can also be a good human being, but if everybody believed that society would never evolve.

>> No.47974972

>>47974807
Like they would never do what they did with the Japanese internment camps? or like they would never intentionally infect blacks with syphilis "just to see what happens" (Tuskegee syphilis experiment)? or like they would never do to the Mexican cartels(Operation Fast and Furious)? If its not already obvious, the US government is willing to do some pretty horrible things already, why not outlaw hetero marriages? I mean, why shouldnt the govt have unchecked access to everything "You"?

>> No.47975026

>>47974931

OP here, I'm not tired enough to sacrifice strengthening my stance.

>have suspect & ulterior motives

My father is a cop, his existence does depend on inspecting others and finding something wrong. He seeks the power to punish, I think that's very much a factor, as most if not all cops do. This makes so much sense.

>>47974941

THANK YOU HOLY SHIT.

>> No.47975031

>>47974158
1. I'd like to see how much he cares about privacy if he was stripped naked and chained to a pole in public and was forced to defecate in front of everyone like an animal in the zoo. sure, government overreaches related to privacy are not anywhere close to that level, but its the principle of it.

2. if you don't like america you need to leave as far as im concerned. How you can not feel pride for your country, the best country on earth, is so offensive that i have nothing else to say. Let the swiss have your unappreciative ass.

For all its flaws, America is without a doubt the best country in the history of the world - the culture, the language, the history, all of its traits are second to none. You're living in the modern Rome and yet you deny it.

>> No.47975046

>>47975026
>THANK YOU HOLY SHIT.

Don't forget that the UN's opinion doesn't mean jack shit in the U.S., so don't fall back on their impact in the rest of the world.

>> No.47975052

>>47974158
> /g/tard attempting to debate philosophy with a cop

Ask him for the pornhub link to his and your mom's sex tapes.

Also, stop disappointing your father. He doesn't want to hear this rebellious script kiddy shit. Stallman & company are autistic distractions, you need to expand your scope, lift some weights, and pursue multiple aspects of life.

In 2 years you could be a better programmer, a better student, and a fucking bodybuilder with bitches all over yo dick.

>> No.47975056

>>47974838
This.

The polarization of politics that's been growing in most of North America is a part of the problem, because it gives rise to the attitudes that leads to the knee-jerk labelling of people as 'the enemy'.

>> No.47975065

>>47974259
Giving up guns for security is much more reasonable if you ask me. Privacy is what built this country, guns are a dangerous relic and frankly barbaric.

they need to go.

>> No.47975092

>>47974950

Thanks mayn.

>you must post "thank u mr gun"

Why would I take orders from a picture? For good luck? Define luck. Define good.

>>47974963

>I was raised to believe that it is OK to break the law as long as you were 100% willing to accept the consequences of your actions.

Yep.

>>47974972

>why not outlaw hetero marriages

Lol, man. Cause that'd be throwing themselves in jail. Good point, though.

>> No.47975094
File: 167 KB, 612x1593, smbc20130108.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
47975094

>>47974168
>privacy for security
It's not even a trade-off. The blackmail and selective prosecution of dissidents is happening; the foiling of terrorist plots is not.

>> No.47975119

>>47974168
>Also, he used those Muslim attacks on people drawing Muhammad as an example of why the Internet and having completely free speech is bad.

He's right on this one. Drawing Mohammad for no other reason than to piss of Muslims who don't want to see it is no different than publicly screaming 'nigger' for no other reason than black people don't want to hear it.

>> No.47975134

>>47974963
And that's how we ended racism folks. :^)

>> No.47975139

>>47975065
>Giving up guns for security is much more reasonable if you ask me.
Only if you can absolutely trust the people providing the security. So we'd need robots to do it. Are you saying you want robots to protect us!?

If yes, skynet pls go.

>> No.47975144

>>47975046

In other words, it won't mean jack shit to my father. Hmm.

>>47975052

In 2 years you could be a better programmer, a better student, and a fucking bodybuilder with bitches all over yo dick.

Why assume, Anon? Who here implied that I wasn't already a fucking bodybuilder with bitches all over my dick? Who here implied I wasn't working towards being a better programmer and student?

You need to stop making assumptions based on the limited information given to you.

>>47975065

>they need to go.

I'd agree there, Anon, if the government didn't have guns or wasn't willing to use them on the undefended public, as they are obviously willing to do.

To me, guns serve as protection against people looking out to get me - and so far I'm only worried about my own government so much.

>> No.47975146

>>47975119
is that good enough of a reason to make it illegal?

>> No.47975154

>>47975144
yeah agree, no one should have guns but the army.

>> No.47975181

>>47975119

But he's saying people should have no right to say those things *at all*. Sure, any individual in America with any ounce of common sense would refrain from saying those things, but the point is, under no circumstance, should anyone have any reason to decide what I can and can not say.

>>47975139

The robots would probably be built and owned by DARPA or Google or the likes, so no.

>> No.47975238

>>47975065
>Giving up guns for security is much more reasonable if you ask me. Privacy is what built this country, guns are a dangerous relic and frankly barbaric.

9/10 trolling.

>> No.47975248
File: 4 KB, 196x233, Hahahaha.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
47975248

>>47975046
Oh man, I googled a bit about human rights in the US and found out that it's such a shithole, that wikipedia has a whole category with subcategories of human rights abuses. Hahahaha, all there for your browsing pleasure. Would you like to see our other category, american war crimes?
Hahahahaha

>> No.47975252

>>47975238

OP here. Guns are quite literally what built this country. Guns are fine, it's the people who operate them that often aren't - some gun nuts, the gubmint, etc.

Guns aren't dangerous. What does a gun do? Nothing. People are dangerous. Guns are a tool.

>> No.47975269

>>47975248

Oh, I'm sure there are a lot. But, as you can see, most Americans are unaware of those, for example, a fucking cop being convinced that America does a great job at keeping our rights protected, and convinced that privacy isn't a human right.

>> No.47975272

>>47975252
Lol, what does a gun do? How about fire a sharp projectile at dangerous speeds with little more than the click of a button.

Are you retarded? If you don't see how a weapon is intrinsicly dangerous then perhaps you shouldnt be participating in this debate.

>> No.47975278
File: 3.48 MB, 480x292, 1431128192013.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
47975278

>>47975144
> limited information given to you.

You said, in so many words, that you're a young naive script kiddy. Your 'mastery' of computers in comparison to the goyim has given you a big head. You see a simpler version of reality which seems easy yet your attempts at application tend to fail. You may have retreated into believing that school will save you.

In 5 years, you're going to be a right-wing conservative asshole. I'm just trying to save you time. You should focus on heavy compound lifts and eat more eggs. Read about Choline.

>> No.47975287

>>47975272
>Lol, what does a gun do?

You'll sure find out if you try to take mine away.

:)

>> No.47975317

>>47975287
Lol, gonna be a short life for you if you think you can really kill a man in cold blood and not reap the consequences. Shoot me and you'll get the chair... anyway enough shitposting, you know you'll just hand it over like the bitch you are when the anti-gun mormans go door to door with their roster X[)

>> No.47975328

OP, are you me? Do you want to be friends?

>> No.47975334

>>47975317
>gonna be a short life for you if you think you can really kill a man in cold blood and not reap the consequences.

You trying to take my guns away would not constitute cold-blooded murder. In fact, where I live, a forced-entry burglary is grounds for self-defense.

>you know you'll just hand it over like the bitch you are when the anti-gun mormans go door to door with their roster X[)

Not a fucking chance.

>> No.47975345

Nice thread. Seriously.

>> No.47975347

>>47975272

Lol, what does a car do? How about fire a several-thousand-pound hunk of metal at dangerous speeds with little more than the push of a pedal.

Are you retarded? If you don't see how a car is intrinsicly dangerous then perhaps you shouldn't be participating in this debate.

>>47975278

The burden of proof lies on the prosecutor. Please, show me where I have said, in so many words, that I'm a 'young naive script kiddy', and yes, I'll admit, my 'mastery' of computers in comparison to the goyim has given me a big head - largely due to the amount of time I've spent on /g/, the attitudes have rubbed off on me, however that big head is completely limited to the areas of my mastery, and I admit I should work on that.

>You may have retreated into believing that school will save you.

What. Also, my attempts at application don't fail. I'm doing well, thank you very much.

>In 5 years, you're going to be a right-wing conservative asshole

Oh god no please no. I hope you're wrong.

>You should focus on heavy compound lifts and eat more eggs.

I do need to start working out, I'll admit that. I used to, but life happened, or should I say an unhealthy lifestyle (I'm not overweight by any means, but I'm not the epitome of health either) happened.

>> No.47975368

>>47975328

I might be you, I'm not sure. I'd love to be friends!

>>47975345

Thank you, Anon.

>> No.47975379

>>47975287
You can't kill a man if they have a legal basis for taking your gun away. That's murder and you'd go to jail for it. Hell you can't even kill someone if they are trying to steal your gun. The only time you can kill anyone is if they present an immediate clear and present danger to your own life or the lives of people around you.

>> No.47975385
File: 278 KB, 377x398, 1398704365142.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
47975385

>>47975252
>>47975272
American gun culture, however, is a travesty. I don't know how to fix that. Going for the right to guns may very well be the wrong thing, though.
I'd compare it to police brutality and the debate about cameras. Will they help? Maybe, maybe not. Complicated issue, conflicting rights, unanswered questions (can they deactivate them? -> useless; they can't -> what if they go to the toilet?)
One thing is crystal clear though. Not having cameras is not causing the brutality. Other countries have no such problem without cameras. It's very superficial to fixate on the cameras on what seems to be a quick fix, when it'll be a crappy bandaid.

Switzerland proves that you can have an armed population without much trouble. Every soldier keeps his weapon indefinitely. And those aren't just pistols, it's military grade rifles. You think there aren't total nutjobs among those old soldiers?

>> No.47975399

>>47975379
>Hell you can't even kill someone if they are trying to steal your gun.

I most certainly fucking can.

>> No.47975420

>>47975379
>Hell you can't even kill someone if they are trying to steal your gun. The only time you can kill anyone is if they present an immediate clear and present danger to your own life or the lives of people around you.
Wouldn't you have to assume that danger when they are trying to steal your gun? I'm thinking, taking it directly off your person, not robbing your house or sth like that.

>> No.47975423

>>47975385
>American gun culture, however, is a travesty. I don't know how to fix that.

Maybe HINT at something you'd like to do. I know you say "I don't know how to fix that", but if it's such a travesty, you should be able to provide some explanation.

inb4
>people love their guns too much
>it's too easy to get a gun

>> No.47975608

>>47974158
Hey OP. Two big points that gets lost in these discussions are:
1. Privacy and secrecy are different things. You claim you have nothing to hide. Good. So I can film your dad in the bathroom? How about his 25th anniversary trip with his wife?
2. In practice, privacy is fundamental to free exercise of liberty and personal agency. There would never have been an American Revolution, nevermind the Enlightenment whose principles it was built on, without the social distance to think new thoughts that is afforded by privacy.

That said, here's some direct rhetorical ammo for the "If you have nothing to hide" line:
http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/

>> No.47975658
File: 1.39 MB, 720x404, Spytcgk.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
47975658

>>47975423
>But if it's such a travesty, you should be able to provide some explanation.
I can't follow this statement at all, it sounds non-sequitur to me.
I think you'd get major improvements already if you started a democracy and tore down the capitalist oligarchy. For that your political system needs to change, no more first past the goalpost but proper proportional representation, no legalised bribing, secret votes for politicians (else lobbyists gain, well, keep too strong a lever on them). In the longer term it'll result in less inequality and better education, more social justice. Americans really need to overcome the stigma of socialism.
More social justice will already result in a calmer society. This very general effect would have some noticeable effects on gun violence I'd think by changing the overall atmosphere, but in proportion to the other things you'd gain, that's almost of minor relevance.

But, tbh, for all I care the USA could erupt in a civil war in the near future. It's a real possibility even. The end of American global geo-political overreach would be nice at least.

>> No.47975724

>>47975347
The difference is a car is not a weapon. Is it dangerous, absolutely, it'd be stupid to pretend otherwise. But it has an actual purpose besides being as lethal as possible - its a mode of transportation.

Guns have no such excuse. Isn't it funny that all the gun supporters always hide behind the "its a tool" excuse? No, it's a weapon. There hasnt be a valid "use" for guns for 2 centuries.

And even when guns had a practical use, it was still a weaponized use - albit justified behind the consumative nature of man.

Theres no place for guns in the modern world.

>> No.47975837

>>47975724

>There hasnt been a valid "use" for guns for 2 centuries.

No sign of intelligent life here. Even an anti-gun supporter should be able to see that guns have obviously been useful between two centuries ago and now.

>Theres no place for guns in the modern world.

Yes there is - locked up on my property in case I need them to defend myself against the gubmint.

>> No.47975932

>>47974259
I'm willing to bet your dad is an avid supporter of the right to bare arms. Play devils advocate, say that the government is actively taking away said guns. Worse yet, they are discrediting, harassing, and even addressing arresting dissenters. Ask him how he would feel sharing his thoughts and opinions against these actions knowing the government is watching, and knowing he may be discredited, harassed, or arrested.

The older generations don't understand how important the internet is to the modern world. You need to make things simple to understand to the point of stupidity.

>> No.47975972

>>47974158
>"Why should I care if I have nothing to hide?"

Because you will use that argument until the day when having nothing to hide is not relevant to innocence.

>> No.47976428

>>47974158
>father is a cop
>doesn't believe in privacy

Op, literally just ask him if he can enter a house without being permission or a warrant. Ask him why the shit he thinks this law is in place to begin with.

>> No.47976465

>>47975658
>I can't follow this statement at all, it sounds non-sequitur to me.

You say American gun culture is a travesty. Explain your reasoning.

If you can't provide one, then go directly to hell.

>> No.47976471

>>47974347
>unwilling to read this deep into things
>unwilling to think hard
Yeah, that sounds like a conservative.
Like I said, don't bother trying to convince him of anything. It will never work; that's just the way he was raised.

>> No.47976504

If your dad doesn't think privacy is important, why does he support the american system with secret ballots when it comes to voting?

>> No.47976700

That's what I fucking thought.

>> No.47976729

You heard of law is opinion with a gun? You don't obey laws, but rather obey moral rules. Thou shall not steal... This is a moral rule. The law says you can't bring certain items with you on the street, that is violation of our freedom. That is the law in most way. Restricting our freedom.

>> No.47976786

>>47976700
What i think is that you're an useless piece of shit, take off your trip and go kill yourself, no one cares about you.

>> No.47976842

>>47976786

Stay rekt nig.

>> No.47976864

>>47974158
>nothing to hide
nobody's perfect, and the truth can be manipulated, all it takes is the right pieces of truth told out of context to get someone in trouble

>> No.47976872
File: 966 KB, 381x216, 1379092747607.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
47976872

>>47974158
>Even though I turned out agnostic, mostly liberal (except the whole /pol/ anti-semitism thing is starting to take a hold on me)

>> No.47976878

>>47974259
Yeah don't come to switzerland OP, we don't want redneck /pol/tards here

>> No.47977726

>>47974158
>>47974158
Walk in on him while he's taking a shower, a piss, his morning shit, into his room when he's doing something and just start rummaging through his shit. Walk around the house naked. Open his mail and read it. Tell him he should delete the nude photos of your mother off of his phone because they disturb you and are quite frankly offensive and no child would want to see naked pictures of their mother. Send him naked photos of his mother or sister.

"What do you mean 'stop'? I thought you said privacy was bad. I'm just following your example. NOW you want privacy? You should be old enough to know that you can't just pick and choose whenever it's convenient for you."

I bet you he starts caring about privacy REAL quick.

>> No.47977750

>>47974388
Ask him if he'd like the right to privacy when he goes for a shit.

>> No.47977838

If the police have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide. I support body cams and dash cams on all on-duty policemen.

If politicians have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide. I support body cams on all politicians as long as they are on taxpayer $$$.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action